but the truth, the outcome of an experiment, remains untouched by this process
You're forgetting that what you're calling "truth" is theory-dependent.
I understand that the fact that science does not deal in truth is deeply uncomfortable, particularly for non-scientists. It is not intended as a criticism, it's just reality. Further, that fact does not (in any way) diminish science. What is harmful, however, is confusing what science is with what we want it to be. Those sorts of beliefs breed dogma, which (as we've seen) hinders the progress of science.
Unfortunately, it can't seem to maintain compatibility between minor versions, it's syntax is so fundamentally broken that anonymous functions were crippled, and only in the less-popular new versions does something as basic as the print function usable.
I've taught plenty of intro programming classes. You're likely just a terrible instructor. I've not found a single student that was incapable.
. About a third of the population is simply incapable of abstract reasoning.
Citation needed. What backwater pay-to-publish journal did you find someone that denies that 1/3 of the population fails to reach the the formal operational stage of development?
If you think otherwise, I invite you to come to my house, and I will give you a free dinner while you explain "vectors" to my 15 year old daughter. Good luck with that.
I have a few teaching tricks I've picked-up for that. I have little doubt I could teach your otherwise normal child the basics of vectors in an evening. Well, at least well enough to get her through calc.
Teaching, like programming, is a skill. If you want to better help her, do some reading on formative assessment.
Why would someone spread the obvious myth that programming requires a 'special mind' or 'in-born talent'? It's clearly delusional, so there must be some other motivation.
The article is another transparent attempt to make people believe coding is like manual labor and hence should be in the cheapest salary class possible.
That explains it! It's just good old fashioned fear and insecurity.
Creating an artificial distinction might make you feel more important, but it's still just self-delusion.
The truth is that anyone can learn to program. Even better, like all skills, they can improve with practice. It doesn't require a 'special mind' or some mythical in-born talent, just patience and practice.
which in no way refutes the oft-cited observation that among people learning to program there's a very distinct double-tassel distribution.
Which is also nonsense, as I've argued countless times. From what I can tell, the only people who believe it have no other skills and are terrified that if the truth were known (that anyone can learn to program) then they'd no longer be special.
A variation of it is quite prominent on Slashdot, with many users inexplicably believing that programming requires a "special mind", dividing people in to two groups: "can program" and "can never program".
Picture this: You're in a bar, and some guy walks up to you looking for trouble. He insults you, belittles you, calls your mother a whore, etc. He just won't let up. You ask him to stop, but he keeps digging at you. You, understandably, punch him in the face.
His claim: You're the bad guy. He was just wants to exercise his right to free speech.
Yeah, 'cause there's no way this could have been about free speech!
It's pretty obvious to all but the hopelessly deluded that this event had absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Not even those offering that justification actually believe it.
This wasn't an "open forum that may offend some people". It was an event specifically intended to belittle a minority group and to provoke violent action.
The organizers of the event couldn't be happier. To them, this is the best possible outcome. Two dead Muslims and "proof" that "they're nothing but violent sociopaths".
Let's not play pretend that this has anything to do with free speech. To say that it is, is simply dishonest. To actually believe it is completely delusional. It's a problem in either case.
Slashdot Mirror
but the truth, the outcome of an experiment, remains untouched by this process
You're forgetting that what you're calling "truth" is theory-dependent.
I understand that the fact that science does not deal in truth is deeply uncomfortable, particularly for non-scientists. It is not intended as a criticism, it's just reality. Further, that fact does not (in any way) diminish science. What is harmful, however, is confusing what science is with what we want it to be. Those sorts of beliefs breed dogma, which (as we've seen) hinders the progress of science.
Unfortunately, it can't seem to maintain compatibility between minor versions, it's syntax is so fundamentally broken that anonymous functions were crippled, and only in the less-popular new versions does something as basic as the print function usable.
The world was better off with VB.
So you believe that causing harm to others, merely for the pleasure of causing harm, is ethical?
You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone to agree with that.
Because you apparently haven't read the post to which you replied, I'll quote it here:
You know, as well as I do, that it's the intention, not the action, that's relevant here.
That's so racist! Not all undocumented extraterrestrial immigrants are Martians, neither are all Martian immigrants undocumented.
Really?
Come on. You know, as well as I do, that it's the intention, not the action, that's relevant here.
It only gets better with time
Okay, then no one is a programmer because what they do doesn't cross my imaginary demarcation line! You've convinced me. There are no programmers!
I've taught plenty of intro programming classes. You're likely just a terrible instructor. I've not found a single student that was incapable.
. About a third of the population is simply incapable of abstract reasoning.
Citation needed. What backwater pay-to-publish journal did you find someone that denies that 1/3 of the population fails to reach the the formal operational stage of development?
If you think otherwise, I invite you to come to my house, and I will give you a free dinner while you explain "vectors" to my 15 year old daughter. Good luck with that.
I have a few teaching tricks I've picked-up for that. I have little doubt I could teach your otherwise normal child the basics of vectors in an evening. Well, at least well enough to get her through calc.
Teaching, like programming, is a skill. If you want to better help her, do some reading on formative assessment.
Why would someone spread the obvious myth that programming requires a 'special mind' or 'in-born talent'? It's clearly delusional, so there must be some other motivation.
The article is another transparent attempt to make people believe coding is like manual labor and hence should be in the cheapest salary class possible.
That explains it! It's just good old fashioned fear and insecurity.
How do you we know whether programming is the kind of job where one can be mediocre and succeed?
Probably because of the countless "mediocre" programmers who are successful.
When one's freedom is on the line, nobody wants a mediocre lawyer; when one's life is on the line, nobody wants a mediocre doctor.
But most of them are mediocre. The world keeps on turning.
There are also some careers where you simply can't succeed at being mediocre, for example any kind of research scientist
Okay, now you're just trolling. Sorry about that. Carry on.
I always consider my first effort at anything a first draft
The best advice I ever received: "There are no good writers, only good re-writers."
Why is it that when you see delusional distinctions like these the dividing line always seems to be at the level of skill of the person offering it?
Creating an artificial distinction might make you feel more important, but it's still just self-delusion.
The truth is that anyone can learn to program. Even better, like all skills, they can improve with practice. It doesn't require a 'special mind' or some mythical in-born talent, just patience and practice.
If there was only a 'preview' button...
which in no way refutes the oft-cited observation that among people learning to program there's a very distinct double-tassel distribution.
Which is also nonsense, as I've argued countless times. From what I can tell, the only people who believe it have no other skills and are terrified that if the truth were known (that anyone can learn to program) then they'd no longer be special.
I've said this before. Having taught many programming classes myself, I've never once encountered one of these mysterious "can't" students.
It's possible that you're just not a very good instructor.
I tuned the radio to the local top-40 station. It would appear that the worst musicians do indeed make money.
A variation of it is quite prominent on Slashdot, with many users inexplicably believing that programming requires a "special mind", dividing people in to two groups: "can program" and "can never program".
Picture this: You're in a bar, and some guy walks up to you looking for trouble. He insults you, belittles you, calls your mother a whore, etc. He just won't let up. You ask him to stop, but he keeps digging at you. You, understandably, punch him in the face.
His claim: You're the bad guy. He was just wants to exercise his right to free speech.
Would you buy that argument?
Well, it was common knowledge.
Kids these days...
Do you hate any other people group? Turks? Black people? Jews?
Yeah, 'cause there's no way this could have been about free speech!
It's pretty obvious to all but the hopelessly deluded that this event had absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Not even those offering that justification actually believe it.
This wasn't an "open forum that may offend some people". It was an event specifically intended to belittle a minority group and to provoke violent action.
The organizers of the event couldn't be happier. To them, this is the best possible outcome. Two dead Muslims and "proof" that "they're nothing but violent sociopaths".
Let's not play pretend that this has anything to do with free speech. To say that it is, is simply dishonest. To actually believe it is completely delusional. It's a problem in either case.
Legally? No. To my knowledge, they did nothing illegal.
Ethically? That's a whole different story...
Science is about what is known, not what isn't.
It wouldn't make much progress if that were the case!
things are either know to be true
Science, by necessity, does not deal in truth. It wouldn't work if it did.
You have a very odd understanding of science.